| Faeandar 2007-04-05, 7:14 pm |
| On 5 Apr 2007 09:23:26 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih <maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hmm. I think that if it supports files > 100GB, then it should support
>them without surprises. Of course, if you say ''commodity'' = ''not
>really for mission critical stuff'', then I can agree.
>
>
>
>I wouldn't know. Linux ext2/3 has a 2TB file size limit.
>
>But that was actually not my point. My point is that if it is
>supported, then it should be supported well. If it is not supported
>that is better than if you think you can use it, but on actual usage
>things start to go wrong. I believe this whole thread shows that ;-)
>
>So ''substandard'' = ''the features are there but you should not
>really use them to their limits'', a.k.a. ''we did it, but we did not
>really do it right''.
>
>Arno
Careful the trail you blaze.
The automounter and NFS client subsystems in Linux are beyond
sub-standard. It exists, and it will work if you do not use it
heavily.
I dislike MS more than most, but throwing stones will only break your
own windows (no pun intended on that one).
~F
|